Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2026 Mar 26;24(3):e3003722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003722

Prenatal and early postnatal periods differentially shape the maturation of human cortical microstructure and myelin

Thanos Tsigaras 1,2, Juergen Dukart 1,2, Stuart Oldham 3,4, Simon B Eickhoff 1,2, Casey Paquola 1,*
Editor: Henry Kennedy5
PMCID: PMC13046243  PMID: 41886498

Abstract

During late gestation and early postnatal development a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors drive the maturation of the human cortex. This process is regionally heterogeneous, with cortical areas developing at different paces and trajectories. Leveraging submillimetre T1-weighted/T2w-weighted (T1w/T2w) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from pre- and full-term neonates (n = 599, 26–44 weeks), we sampled intracortical profiles across the cortex and characterized the profiles’ shapes according to their central moments. We found that gestational age at birth dominated the effects on early cortical development, with significant, global increases in intracortical homogeneity and a bimodal change in the balance of myelin-sensitive signal between superficial and deeper cortical layers. On the other hand, weeks since birth (i.e., postnatal age) exhibited different effects on myelin, with increasing intracortical heterogeneity and intracortical balance only shifting towards deeper layers in posterior temporal, occipital, medial parietal areas and some prefrontal areas. These effects align with low spatial-frequency geometric eigenmodes of the human cortex, specifically the anterior–posterior and superior-inferior axes. Our findings demonstrate that separating prenatal from postnatal influences, and analyzing intracortical profiles rather than macroscale features, provides finer-grained insights into how human cortical myelin changes during perinatal development and lays the groundwork for investigating the biological underpinnings that govern normative cortical maturation.


How prenatal and postnatal periods shape the developing human cortex is not well understood. Using neonatal MRI, this study shows that time in the womb drives widespread, uniform maturation, whereas time after birth produces more region- and depth-specific changes across the cortex.

Introduction

Perinatal neurodevelopment is a multifaceted procedure, comprising the early stages of the molecular, structural, and functional maturation of the infantile human cortex. While non-human animal studies and human postmortem research have laid out the key steps in perinatal neurodevelopment [1–3], it remains unclear how these processes produce the regional heterogeneity of the entire human cortex.

Early cortical maturation is characterized by heterochronicity, in which cortical regions develop at different paces. For example, synaptic density in the primary visual cortex peaks during the 5th month of development, whereas in the prefrontal cortex, the peak occurs during the 15th postnatal month [4]. Regional differences in cortical phenotypes are initially driven by morphogens (e.g., FGF, Shh, and WNT), whose overlapping gradients result in a protomap of arealisation [5]. Neural activity progressively refines this protomap, shifting from predominately spontaneous synchronized bursts during gestation to more sensory-driven thalamocrortical activity postnatally [2]. While in utero the fetus is sensitive to the maternal heartbeat, touch of the abdomen and external noise [6,7], genetic programs primarily steer neurodevelopmental processes [8,9]. After birth, alongside internally generated activity (e.g., during sleep), neurodevelopment is increasingly shaped by experience-dependent plasticity, involving reinforcement of frequently used axons through myelination and pruning of infrequently used synapses [4,10,11]. These differences in intra- versus extrauterine development motivate consideration of how pre- and postnatal durations impact the architecture of the infantile cortex. In addition, understanding the impact of each developmental period will allow us to gain insight into how premature birth disrupts neurodevelopmental processes, and increases the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders [12,13].

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have shown regionally variable patterns of cortical maturation [14–16]. Across multiple modalities, differences in cortical development are most prominent between sensory and association cortices, suggesting that unimodal areas develop earlier than heteromodal areas [17–19]. However, extant in vivo research has primarily been constrained to macroscale features, such as thickness and surface area, which are relatively insensitive to finer-scale features, e.g., cortical columns and layers [20,21]. Yet these finer-scale features are progressively refined during perinatal neurodevelopment and lay the foundation for functional specialization of each cortical region [1,22], therefore there is a need to shift the focus on investigating microstructure rather than morphology alone.

Intracortical profiling of sub-millimeter resolution in vivo MRI offers a novel opportunity to tap into the micro-scale maturation of the cortex. Recent work has shown that microstructure profiles, extracted from T1-weighted/T2-weighted (T1w/T2w) imaging, capture regional differences in laminar organization, as indicated by postmortem histology [23–25]. T1w/T2w imaging enhances cortical myelin contrast by mathematically canceling out receive field (B1−) bias [26–28]. The residual transmit field (B1+) biases, however, vary across the field of view and across participants in such a way that absolute differences in T1w/T2w values cannot be directly interpreted as absolute differences in cortical myelin [29,30]. Inspecting relative T1w/T2w levels across cortical depths within an area overcomes this issue, however, due to the low spatial frequency of the B1+ biases [31] Indeed, using a multi-modal test-retest dataset [32], Paquola and colleagues [23] recently showed that the shape of T1w/T2w intracortical profiles are reliable and exhibit very similar individual-specific spatial patterns to those derived from quantitative R1. Combined with evidence that R1 is strongly correlated with histological myelin [33], these findings support that the intracortical balance of T1w/T2w effectively proxies depth-wise variations in myelin, and these values can be compared across participants.

In this study, we leveraged high-resolution MRI from 599 infants in their first postnatal weeks, spanning a wide spectrum of gestational ages (23–42 weeks), to characterize the maturational dynamics of cortical microstructure. We evaluated how intra- and extrauterine durations impact cortical development and its progression, as well as how modeling gestational and postnatal ages separately can help explain the regional differences in the influence of dominantly intrinsic, prenatal programming from increasingly experience-dependent postnatal changes on cortical microstructure. Finally, we assessed to what extent these dynamics are constrained by low-dimensional cortical geometry and thereby reflect patterning by spatial gradients.

Methods

Participants and demographics

The present study leveraged the Developing Human Connectome Project (dHCP), an open-access initiative designed to map neonatal brain development using multi-modal MRI (https://www.developingconnectome.org/, [34]). The study was approved by the United Kingdom Health Research Authority (Research Ethics Committee reference number: 14/LO/1169) and conducted in accordance to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. Written parental consent was obtained in every case for imaging and open data release of the anonymized data. In the 4th release of the dataset (https://biomedia.github.io/dHCP-release-notes/), 805 neonate participants (373 females, 26–45 weeks postmenstrual age) with a total of 915 scans were provided, including term-born (n = 594) and prematurely born (n = 211) infants. Infants born at 37 weeks of gestational age or earlier are classified as preterm [35]. Exclusion criteria were chromosomal abnormalities, brain injuries, contraindications for MRI scanning, and acute birth complications treated with prolonged resuscitation. Among the 805 participants, 100 originated from non-singleton pregnancies. Additionally, a subsample of neonates were scanned more than once, with the 4th release including two timepoints for 106 participants and three timepoints for two participants.

Here, we examined the influence of three different developmental measures: gestational age, postnatal age, and postmenstrual age. Gestational age captures the intrauterine development of the fetus and is calculated as the duration from the first day of the mother’s last menstrual period to the day of birth. Postnatal age refers to the period from birth to the day of the scan, reflecting the extrauterine development of the infant. Finally, postmenstrual age is the sum of the former two metrics, representing the cumulative maturation of the brain during both the pre- and postnatal stages of development. Since gestational and postnatal age are not independent of postmenstrual age, it is not possible to biologically separate the influences of each period. However, we aimed to partially disentangle their distinct associations with cortical microstructure conditional on postmenstrual age, in lieu of being able to reconstruct individualized developmental trajectories throughout the in- and ex-utero periods. All ages/developmental measures are reported in weeks+days, e.g., “6+6 weeks”.

For our study, additional inclusion criteria were the availability of T1w and T2w images, as well as a complete FreeSurfer output. Furthermore, for participants with longitudinal scanning, we only used scans from the earliest time point to maintain a balanced cross-sectional dataset and avoid biases introduced by repeated measures. Finally, since the oldest term-born infant had a postnatal age of 6+6 weeks, scans of preterm neonates with a postnatal age exceeding 7 weeks were also excluded to cover the mismatch in postnatal age distributions. This also worked as an exclusion criterion for preterm participants which were scanned significantly later after birth due to medical complications. The final dataset consisted of 599 participants (279 females, 162 preterm, 79 from non-singleton pregnancies). The inclusion of preterm infants in the study aims at providing a wide range of both pre- and postnatal developmental periods to be able to estimate the independent association of gestational age with intracortical microstructure. Results were replicated using the same sample of participants but excluding the participants of non-singleton pregnancies (S1–S3 Figs), as well as excluding extremely and very preterm infants (S4–S6 Figs). Full demographics of the subsample used in this study are presented in Table 1 and Fig 1.

Table 1. Dataset demographics and developmental metrics.

Median ± SD (range) Sex differences Bivariate correlation with PMA (r) Bivariate correlation with GA (r) Bivariate correlation with PNA (r)
Postmenstrual age (PMA, weeks) 40+3
(26+5–44+5)
t(597) = 0.29 p = 0.77 − 0.92 −0.04
Gestational age (GA, weeks) 39+2
(23+5–42+2)
t(597) = 0.10 p = 0.92 0.92 − −0.43
Postnatal age (PNA, weeks) 0+6
(0.00–7.00)
t(597) = 0.42 p = 0.68 −0.04 −0.43 −
Weight at scan (kg) 3.06 ± 0.92 (0.74–5.36) t(559) = −2.25 p = 0.03 0.88 0.83 −0.10
Head circumference at scan (cm) 33.67 ± 3.14 (21.00–39.10) t(571) = −2.44 p = 0.02 0.88 0.83 −0.08

Fig 1. Dataset demographics.

Fig 1

(A) Age distributions of the 599 participants (y-axis). The plot represents duration of gestation at time of birth (left dot) and age at time of scan (right dot). (B) The scatter plot illustrates the relationship between gestational age (GA) and postnatal age (PNA), with data points color-coded by sex (blue: male, yellow: female). Histograms on the edges of the scatter plot show the distributions of gestational (top) and postnatal (right) age for males and females.

MRI acquisition and preprocessing

The MRI acquisition was performed at St. Thomas Hospital, London using a Philips 3T scanner. The acquisition protocol was optimized for neonatal imaging, incorporating custom-built head coils as well as specialized positioning and immobilization techniques to minimize motion artifacts, while ensuring the safety of the participants [34]. Participants were naturally asleep during the image acquisition with the exception of six out of the 805 subjects, for whom sedation was used (two of which included in the present study). T1 images were acquired using an IR (Inversion Recovery) TSE sequence at a resolution of 0.8 × 0.8 × 1.6 mm with a repetition time (TR) of 4.8s, an echo time (TE) of 8.7 ms, and sensitivity encoding (SENSE) factors of 2.26 (axial) and 2.66 (sagittal). T2 images were acquired at the same resolution using a Turbo Spin Echo (TSE) sequence, with a TR of 12 s, TE of 156 ms, and SENSE factors of 2.11 (axial) and 2.58 (sagittal).

Preprocessed data were downloaded from the 4th release of the dHCP. For comprehensive details on image preprocessing, refer to Makropoulos and colleagues [36]. In brief, motion correction and super-resolution reconstruction were employed on T1 and T2 images to achieve isotropic volumes with a resolution of 0.5 mm3 [37,38]. Then, brain tissue was extracted from the T2 images (BET, [39]), tissue-type segmentation was performed using Draw-EM [40] and cortical surfaces were reconstructed from T1 images. Following rigid co-registration of the motion-corrected T1w to the T2w image, T1w/T2w ratio images were computed.

To minimize potential inaccuracies of vertex-to-vertex correspondence, we parcellated cortical measurements into broader regions using the von Economo atlas, which captures regional differences in laminar organization [41,42]. We aligned the parcellation scheme to native cortical surfaces via the dhcpSym40 40-week (postmenstrual age) infant template surface [43]. For this purpose, we used template-to-native registration spheres that were released with dHCP and multimodal surface matching [44], optimized for alignment of sulcal depth. Regions within the limbic lobe (von Economo areas LA1, LA2, LC1, LC2, LC3, LD, and LE) were excluded from the analysis due to limited cortical thickness in these regions, which in turn reduced the capacity of intracortical intensity sampling. This omission resulted to 66 parcels (33 in each hemisphere). For validation of the results, all analyses were replicated using the Schaefer-200 atlas [45] (S7 and S8 Figs).

Microstructure profiles and their central moments

To analyze the cortical microstructure of the participants, we constructed 12 equivolumetric surfaces between native pial and white matter surfaces. The equivolumetric model compensates for variations in laminar thickness between sulci and gyri [46,47] by varying the Euclidean distance between pairs of intracortical surfaces based on curvature to preserve the fractional volume between surfaces [48]. Then, we sampled image intensities at matched vertices across the 12 intracortical depths using trilinear interpolation, which calculates a weighted average of eight neighboring voxels at each sampling depth (Fig 2A). The average spatial distributions of T1w/T2w intensities can be seen in S14 Fig.

Fig 2. Intracortical profiling on infant MRI.

Fig 2

(A) Intracortical intensity profiles were extracted at each vertex of infant structural MRI scans. Intensities were sampled at 12 equivolumetric intracortical surfaces, spanning from the pial boundary (blue) to the white matter boundary (yellow), capturing signal variations across cortical depths, defined as microstructure profiles. (B) Systematic changes in profile shape with respect to (i) center of gravity and (ii) variance. To illustrate this relationship, all profiles (across participants and regions) were sorted according to the respective moment, then averaged within 100 bins. (C) Parcel-wise central moment distributions mapped on the dHCP 40-week surface template (see S1 Data). Excluded regions (i.e., von Economo areas LA1, LA2, LC1, LC2, LC3, LD, and LE and the cortical wall) are shown in gray. Due to the high inter-hemispheric correlation of the central moments (r = 0.79 for center of gravity and r = 0.93 for variance), we show only results of the left hemisphere for simplicity.

To achieve a low-dimensional representation of the complex patterns of intracortical variation, we characterized the shape of each profile using two central moments. This method, inspired by histological studies [49], provides a compact, biological interpretable description of the signal distributions. Computation of μ1 and μ2 involves treating the profile as a histogram with intracortical depths as bins and the intensities as frequency, then simply computing the mean and standard deviation values. Thereby, the first moment, center of gravity (μ1), describes how the intensity distribution is balanced across cortical depths, whereby a high center of gravity corresponds to higher intensities in the deeper cortex and a low center of gravity describes higher intensities in the superficial cortex, hence providing an indicator of the balance of microstructure across supra- and infragranular layers (Fig 2Bi). The second moment, variance (μ2), characterizes the spread of intensities across the profile. A higher variance relates to a flatter intensity profile with a more homogeneous intensity distribution along depths (i.e., uniformly distributed intensities across intracortical depths), and a low variance describes a heterogeneous intensity distribution across intracortical depths (Fig 2Bii). Each of these moments, as well as their combinations, provides insights into the nature of lamination in the cortex and captures distinct patterns of microstructural differentiation across the cortical surface (Fig 2C). A recent study has tested the validity of using central moments in lower-resolution data by downsampling ultra-high-resolution T1 data [23,50]. The central moment maps of the downsampled data were highly similar to the maps of the original data (r > 0.9), a finding supporting that, even at the resolution of neonatal data, microstructure profiling can capture meaningful, regional variations in laminar organization.

Partial volume effects with white matter are unavoidable at the resolution of the analyzed scans, however, previous work has shown that correcting for these effects has little to no impact on the central moments [51], since these describe the intracortical distribution of intensities instead of depth-specific intensities. Additionally, the boundary between the gray and white matter is not sharply defined, therefore signal-mixing in deeper layers may index interesting developmental changes in long-range projections and the underlying U-fiber system. Together, the equivolumetric spacing, the oversampling using trilinear interpolation, as well as the use of central moments to summarize the intracortical profiles ensure a robust and thickness-insensitive characterization of intracortical T1w/T2w distributions at the resolution available. This approach enables the reliable investigation of the regional variation of laminar organization, somewhat overcoming the limitation of the relatively low resolution of the scans.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis focused on investigating the effects of postmenstrual age, gestational age, and postnatal age on microstructure, defined by the central moments of average intracortical intensity profiles on a parcel level. These three developmental metrics were analyzed both independently and collectively to account for different aspects of cortical development. First, to assess cumulative maturation of the brain, parcel-wise linear regression analysis was performed using postmenstrual age and sex as predictors and each central moment individually as response variables. False discovery rate (FDR) correction with an alpha of 0.025 was applied to account for multiple comparisons.

Next, to dissect the effect of postmenstrual age on cortical microstructure into its pre- and postnatal components, we first performed a linear model comparison, with each average central moment across all parcels as the response variable and combinations of gestational age, postnatal age, and sex as predictors, validating the fit of these variables for modeling cortical microstructure. Due to the broad overlap of the distributions of gestational and postnatal age, we isolated the unique contributions of each developmental variable to cortical microstructure in multi-variate regression models, that included gestational age, postnatal age, and sex. Since gestational and postnatal age are not independent from postmenstrual age, we used the multi-variate models to assess the effects of these developmental metrics as relative associations and not to directly compare their magnitudes. Results of univariate models of gestational and postnatal age are shown in S9 Fig. To validate the independence of the results from cortical thickness maturation, all results were replicated using models which additionally included cortical thickness as a predictor (S10–S12 Figs).

To test whether regional variation in development concords with large-scale spatial gradients, we computed the product-moment correlations between the postmenstrual, gestational, and postnatal age effects and the 2nd–4th geometric eigenmodes [52]. Geometric eigenmodes were computed by applying the Laplace–Beltrami operator (LBO) to the surface mesh of a population-average infant neocortex (“dhcpSym” 40-week, [43]), using code provided by Pang and colleagues [52]. The LBO treats the cortical surface as a Riemannian manifold and computes eigenfunctions of the surface Laplacian, capturing geometric patterns from coarse to fine scales. A 1st eigenmode is spatially uniform by construction and was therefore not included in the analysis. Product-moment correlations were performed on unthresholded vertex-wise maps and spin permutation testing [53] was performed to assess the significance of the correlation with the eigenmodes, while accounting for spatial autocorrelation in each map (10,000 permutations, alpha level of 0.025). In addition, we assessed the additive effects of eigenmodes in explaining age effects through a series of uni- then multi-variate linear regressions.

Results

Changes in cortical microstructure with postmenstrual age

Globally, intracortical myelin-sensitive signal increases with postmenstrual age, in a manner that generally leads to a more balanced distribution of the T1w/T2w signal across cortical depths (rvariance = 0.51, p < 0.001; Fig 3A and 3B). These changes resulted from signal increases in upper layers for superior regions and increases in deeper layers in inferior regions, as illustrated by the bimodal pattern of age-related changes in center of gravity (Fig 3A and 3B). These analyses show how perinatal development of intracortical myelin is region- and depth-specific, whereby unique developmental trajectories are expressed across the cortex.

Fig 3. Postmenstrual age and intracortical myelin.

Fig 3

(A) Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postmenstrual age (PMA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for sex. Surface maps display t-values for the PMA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (left) and variance (right) (see S1 Data). Statistically non-significant parcels (p > 0.05) and excluded parcels are displayed in gray. (B) Sliding window visualization of profile changes with PMA (age bins = 1.5-week windows with 50% overlap) for the two regions with the maximum increases and decreases for center of gravity (panel i and iii) and variance (panel ii and iv), with neighboring scatter plots depicting the relationship between PMA with depth-specific T1w/T2w-intensities based on product-moment correlations. Due to the high inter-hemispheric correlation of the PMA-effects (r = 0.84 for center of gravity and r = 0.96 for variance), we show only results of the left hemisphere for simplicity. Abbreviations: CoG, center of gravity; PMA, postmenstrual age.

Effects of gestational and postnatal age on cortical development

Next, we divided the developmental period into gestational age and postnatal age. To examine how the timing of birth and the developmental period after birth influence early cortical development, we linearly modeled the relationship of each central moment with gestational age and postnatal age, while controlling for the effect of the other (Fig 4). This approach doesn’t aim at completely separating prenatal and postnatal influences, but rather to investigate the systematic differences in intracortical microstructure between infants who spent relatively more time in utero and infants who spent more time ex utero. Gestational age effects mirrored the postmenstrual age effects reported above, emphasizing the importance of the in utero period in shaping perinatal microstructure. During the postnatal period, only increases of the center of gravity in inferior regions remained statistically significant. Interestingly, we observed decreases in profile variance, corresponding to a less flat profile, thus suggesting that cortical layers become more differentiable in the first postnatal weeks, in contrast to the increasing homogeneity during prenatal development. These effects were relatively consistent with a different parcellation scheme (r > 0.7 for center of gravity and r > 0.59 for variance; S7–S9 Figs) and when excluding extremely preterm (r > 0.98; S4 Fig), very preterm (r > 0.89; S5 Fig) and preterm infants (r > 0.70; S6 Fig). Based on these findings, the distribution of myelin-sensitive signal across cortical layers shifts in distinct, region-specific ways in each developmental period.

Fig 4. Distinct associations of gestational and postnatal age with intracortical myelin.

Fig 4

Large cortical surface maps illustrate gestational (GA, top) and postnatal (PNA, bottom) age effects on each central moment, after controlling for PNA and GA, respectively. Smaller cortical surface maps illustrate univariate GA- and PNA-effects (i.e., without regressing out the other metric). Statistically non-significant parcels (p > 0.05) and excluded parcels are displayed in gray. Due to the high inter-hemispheric correlation of the GA- and PNA-effects (rGA = 0.84 and rPNA = 0.8 for center of gravity; rGA = 0.96 and rPNA = 0.9 for variance), we show only results of the left hemisphere for simplicity (see S1 Data).

Alignment of developmental effects on myelin to geometric eigenmodes

Next, we assessed whether large-scale spatial gradients could account for regional differences in early microstructural development (Fig 5). Indeed, prenatally, changes in center of gravity were correlated with the 2nd eigenmode, reflecting an anterior–posterior gradient (r = −0.62, pspin = 0.03). Regional differences in postnatal age effects were also correlated with spatial axes, with changes in the center of gravity also being aligned with the anterior–posterior axis (r = −0.68, pspin = 0.006) and changes in variance being aligned with the 3rd eigenmode, capturing a superior-inferior axis (rvar = 0.57, pspin = 0.04). Combining eigenmodes in multi-variate models explained even more variance in the spatial patterns (Fig 5B). Age-related changes in center of gravity were particularly strongly associated with eigenmodes (R2 > 0.6), suggesting that the preference of microstructural increases to occur in upper versus lower layers is especially tightly linked to cortical geometry.

Fig 5. Alignment of intracortical myelin development with geometric eigenmodes.

Fig 5

(A) Surface maps of the first four vertex-wise geometric eigenmodes (see S1 Data). (B) Product-moment correlation coefficients between the effects of postmenstrual (left), gestational (middle), and postnatal age (right) on each central moment and the 2nd–4th eigenmodes (see S1 Data). The surface maps shown below each scatter plot are the same maps shown in Figs 3 and 4, but without significance threshold. The whiskers represent the range of correlation values obtained from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Significant correlations are highlight with one asterisk for p < 0.05 and two asterisks for p < 0.01. (C) Linear regression models were used to assess the explained variance of the effects of postmenstrual (left), gestational (middle), and postnatal age (right) by the 2nd–4th geometric eigenmodes or combinations thereof. Data and code used to generate this figure can be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18910237.

Discussion

Late gestation and early postnatal life are pivotal windows for the development of the human cortex, during which changes in cortical cytoarchitecture set the foundations for the brain’s functional specialization. In this study, we combined histology-inspired intracortical profiling [23,49] with T1w/T2w ratio [27] to characterize the developing structure of the infant human cortex. We identified regional heterogeneity in the structural changes that occur during the perinatal maturation of the cortex. Breaking down this perinatal period into its intra- and extrauterine stages revealed separable contributions of gestational and postnatal age to cortical development, highlighting how the structure of the cortex is differentially influenced by the internal environment during gestation and the external environment after birth. We also identified significant correlations between the developmental dynamics of myelin and geometric eigenmodes of the cortex [52], suggesting that early cortical maturation is influenced by topographical constraints.

The influences on cortical development shift at the time of birth. During intrauterine development intrinsic genetic programming primarily dictates the organization of cortical laminae, and subplate activity guides neuronal migration and axonal extension [54,55]. While sensory experience also shapes the cortical structure during gestation [56], after birth, the variety of sensory input and the maturation of GABAergic inhibition [57,58] shift the modulation of structural dynamics toward experience-dependent synaptogenesis and intracortical myelination [4,59]. In essence, perinatal development is characterized by a transition from a more strictly-regulated, genetically-governed maturation to increasingly experience-dependent changes in connection strength. This modulatory transition highlights the importance of the timing of birth in brain development, as prematurely born infants are exposed to extra-uterine sensory input at a stage when their cortical circuitry is still undergoing rapid organization, which may contribute to altered trajectories of postnatal plasticity. However, other significant clinical factors, such as mechanical ventilation, antenatal steroids, and oxygenation control, are contributing to the disrupted cortical growth of prematurely born infants.

Addressing the transitional period around birth, our study highlighted the importance of investigating and characterizing early cortical development in a way that assesses both the cumulative period of development (intra- and extrauterine), as well as each of its components individually. In particular, we included preterm infants in our analyses to gauge a broad range of gestational durations and statistically compensated for the generally higher postnatal ages in preterm infants using multi-variate regression models. By modeling gestational and postnatal ages separately, we showed that the timing of birth dominated the effects on early microstructural development, highlighting the importance of the intrinsic programming. We also observed significant postnatal changes in several cortical regions, even after controlling for these prominent effects of gestational maturation and despite the short postnatal period investigated in this study. In occipital, posterior temporal, and some prefrontal regions, myelin increases are more prominent in the deeper cortical layers, following a similar trajectory to the gestational dynamics. In contrast, we did not observe a continuation of prenatal increases in upper cortical layers in frontal and central areas in the postnatal period, showing a potential discontinuity between developmental trajectories of the two periods. Finally, whereas intracortical profiles become increasingly balanced with later gestational age, this effect seemed to flip after birth with postnatal changes in laminar organization. In general, the prominent effect of gestational maturation on cortical myelin hints toward the importance of the timing of birth and is consistent with literature across various modalities supporting that premature transition to the ex utero environment may alter the otherwise well-regulated developmental trajectories of cortical growth [60–63]. However, when we explicitly tested the interaction term between gestational and postnatal age, we found significant effects in only about one quarter of the parcels when modeling center of gravity and none of the parcels when modeling variance. Thus, the idea that earlier transition to the ex utero environment influences the trajectories of postnatal cortical development should be viewed as a speculative interpretation, rather than a conclusion from our analyses. Longitudinal studies extending into later infancy would be especially helpful for elucidating how and when the modest postnatal age influences observed here evolve into larger, experience-driven changes. Such work could complement cross-sectional approaches by providing within-subject developmental trajectories.

Regional differences in cortical cytoarchitecture originate from morphogen gradients, which pattern the mammalian cortex with variable concentrations of growth factors during gestation [64]. Supporting the importance of gradients in shaping cortical development, we also found that large-scale eigenmodes capture a majority of variance in regional heterogeneity, especially in terms of changes in the balance between upper and lower cortical layers. Starting in utero and continuing during postnatal development, thalamocortical connectivity is thought to refine cortical arealisation, especially around primary sensory areas [54,65]. Relatedly, histological and imaging studies consistently show that primary sensory and motor regions mature earlier than the association cortex [15,16,66]. While the short postnatal timeframe encompassed by this dataset precludes interpretation of maturity per se, we observed strong postnatal changes in deeper layers of the occipital and inferior temporal cortex, highlighting a preferential development of deeper layers of cortical regions involved in visual processing during this early period of immense sensory stimulation. Notably, we found an opposing trend in sensorimotor areas, with a preference towards microstructural development of upper layers. This contrast may underpin the differentiation of sensorimotor and visual cortical areas; a pattern that aligns with their strong functional differentiation during infancy [67]. However, although intracortical profiling allows the characterization of depth-dependent differences between regions, central moment metrics are agnostic to the timing of neuronal migration and layer formation, therefore it’s not possible to determine whether one of these regions is “more advanced” than the other in a developmental sense.

This study was constrained by a number of limitations. First, the inclusion of extremely and very preterm infants makes it difficult to separate the influences of gestational timing from the impact of medical interventions that concern prematurely born infants (e.g., respiratory support, medication exposure, etc.). Although we performed sensitivity analyses excluding extremely and very preterm infants, residual confounding by these clinical factors cannot be excluded. Therefore, our assumptions regarding premature transition to the ex utero environment altering developmental trajectories of cortical growth must be interpreted as hypothetical interpretations and not as definitive conclusions. Second, the cross-sectional design and narrow postnatal age range limit the potential to investigate developmental trajectories or to disentangle prenatal from postnatal influences. Gestational and postnatal age are collinear components of postmenstrual age and differ in their ranges, thus we can only infer relative associations with these developmental components, rather than strict separations of pre- versus postnatal influences. Finally, although our approach provides novel insights into the balance of myelin across cortical depths, the imaging resolution prohibits the delineation of separate cortical layers. As such, we may not make conclusions about the differentiation or development of numbered layers.

In conclusion, the present study demonstrates how intracortical profiling of neonatal MRI can reveal distinct spatial patterns of development, which reflect the regional differentiation across large-scale spatial gradients. These findings offer a framework for linking macroscale in-vivo MRI to microscale biology, showing how depth-specific changes underpin regional differentiation between sensory systems and levels of the cortical hierarchy. Modeling gestational and postnatal ages separately helped to disentangle intrinsic, prenatal influences from more experience-dependent postnatal changes of cortical microstructure, illustrating how intrauterine development dominates microstructural refinement in comparison to the very early stages of extrauterine development. Our approach lays the groundwork for future studies to elucidate the biological underpinnings that govern normative cortical maturation, as well as to pinpoint how prematurity increases the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders [68–70].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Effects of postmenstrual age on cortical myelin, excluding twin participants.

Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postmenstrual age (PMA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps were derived from a subsample of participants, which excluded any participants of multiple pregnancies. Smaller surface maps were derived from the original sample of this study. All surface maps display t-values for the PMA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects on the original dataset and the dataset excluding twins is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s001.pdf (213.2KB, pdf)
S2 Fig. Effects of gestational age on cortical myelin after correcting for the effects of postnatal age, excluding twin participants.

Linear regression models were used to assess the association between gestational age (GA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps were derived from a subsample of participants, which excluded any participants of multiple pregnancies. Smaller surface maps were derived from the original sample of this study. All surface maps display t-values for the GA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects on the original dataset and the dataset excluding twins is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s002.pdf (197.7KB, pdf)
S3 Fig. Effects of postnatal age on cortical myelin after correcting for the effects of gestational age, excluding twin participants.

Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postnatal age (PNA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps were derived from a subsample of participants, which excluded any participants of multiple pregnancies. Smaller surface maps were derived from the original sample of this study. All surface maps display t-values for the PNA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects on the original dataset and the dataset excluding twins is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s003.pdf (194.9KB, pdf)
S4 Fig. Effects on cortical myelin, excluding extremely preterm infants.

Linear regression models were used to asses the association between postmenstrual (left), gestational (middle) and postnatal age (right) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while excluding extremely preterm (EPT) infants from the analyses. The first and third rows of surface maps display the t-values for the developmental variables in the original dataset with all participants, whereas the second and forth rows display the t-values for the developmental variables in the subset excluding EPT participants. The first two rows correspond to the linear models with center of gravity as response variable, whereas the third and forth rows correspond to the models with variance as response variable. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s004.pdf (237.9KB, pdf)
S5 Fig. Effects on cortical myelin, excluding very preterm infants.

Linear regression models were used to asses the association between postmenstrual (left), gestational (middle) and postnatal age (right) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while excluding very preterm (VPT) infants from the analyses. The first and third rows of surface maps display the t-values for the developmental variables in the original dataset with all participants, whereas the second and forth rows display the t-values for the developmental variables in the subset excluding VPT participants. The first two rows correspond to the linear models with center of gravity as response variable, whereas the third and forth rows correspond to the models with variance as response variable. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s005.pdf (236.1KB, pdf)
S6 Fig. Effects on cortical myelin, excluding preterm infants.

Linear regression models were used to asses the association between postmenstrual (left), gestational (middle) and postnatal age (right) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while excluding preterm (PT) infants from the analyses. The first and third rows of surface maps display the t-values for the developmental variables in the original dataset with all participants, whereas the second and forth rows display the t-values for the developmental variables in the subset excluding PT participants. The first two rows correspond to the linear models with center of gravity as response variable, whereas the third and forth rows correspond to the models with variance as response variable. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s006.pdf (236.1KB, pdf)
S7 Fig. Effects of postmenstrual age on cortical myelin, Schaefer-200 atlas.

Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postmenstrual age (PMA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions of the Schaefer-200 atlas, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps display t-values for the PMA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). Smaller surface maps show the results of the same models using the von Economo atlas. The spatial correlation between the effects on the Schaefer-200 and von Economo atlas is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. To calculate these correlations, parcel-wise results were upsampled to vertex-wise level. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s007.pdf (192.3KB, pdf)
S8 Fig. Effects of gestational age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of postnatal age, Schaefer-200 atlas.

Linear regression models were used to assess the association between gestational age (GA) with intracortical profile moments across cortical regions of the Schaefer-200 atlas, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps display t-values for the GA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). Smaller surface maps show the results of the same models using the von Economo atlas. The spatial correlation between the effects on the Schaefer-200 and von Economo atlas is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. To calculate these correlations, parcel-wise results were upsampled to vertex-wise level. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s008.pdf (198KB, pdf)
S9 Fig. Effects of postnatal age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of gestational age, Schaefer-200 atlas.

Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postnatal age (PNA) with intracortical profile moments across cortical regions of the Schaefer-200 atlas, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps display t-values for the PNA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). Smaller surface maps show the results of the same models using the von Economo atlas. The spatial correlation between the effects on the Schaefer-200 and von Economo atlas is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. To calculate these correlations, parcel-wise results were upsampled to vertex-wise level. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s009.pdf (194.9KB, pdf)
S10 Fig. Depth-wise intensity distributions.

Parcel-wise T1w/T2w intensity distributions mapped on the dHCP 40-week surface template. Excluded regions (i.e., von Economo areas LA1, LA2, LC1, LC2, LC3, LD, and LE and the cortical wall) are shown in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s010.pdf (307.3KB, pdf)
S11 Fig. Effects of gestational and postnatal age on cortical myelin, without correcting for the effects of each other.

Cortical surface maps illustrate the spatial distribution of gestational (left) and postnatal (right) age effects on each central moment, without controlling for postnatal and gestational age, respectively. The parcel-wise estimates were obtained from linear regression models with gestational age and sex or postnatal age and sex as predictors. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s011.pdf (232.7KB, pdf)
S12 Fig. Effects of postmenstrual age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of cortical thickness.

Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postmenstrual age (PMA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for cortical thickness and sex. The original results of this study, without controlling for cortical thickness are displayed as smaller surface maps. All surface maps display t-values for the PMA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects with and without controlling for cortical thickness is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s012.pdf (193KB, pdf)
S13 Fig. Effects of gestational age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of cortical thickness.

Linear regression models were used to assess the association between gestational age (GA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for cortical thickness and sex. The original results of this study, without controlling for cortical thickness are displayed as smaller surface maps. All surface maps display t-values for the GA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects with and without controlling for cortical thickness is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s013.pdf (195.2KB, pdf)
S14 Fig. Effects of postnatal age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of cortical thickness.

Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postnatal age (PNA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for cortical thickness and sex. The original results of this study, without controlling for cortical thickness are displayed as smaller surface maps. All surface maps display t-values for the PNA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects with and without controlling for cortical thickness is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

(PDF)

pbio.3003722.s014.pdf (213KB, pdf)
S1 Data. Data file.

(XLSX)

pbio.3003722.s015.xlsx (18.3KB, xlsx)

Abbreviations

dHCP

Developing Human Connectome Project

FDR

false discovery rate

LBO

Laplace–Beltrami operator

MRI

magnetic resonance imaging

SENSE

sensitivity encoding

TE

echo time

TR

repetition time

TSE

Turbo Spin Echo

Data Availability

Data were obtained from the developing Human Connectome Project (https://www.developingconnectome.org/), which is openly available to download for research purposes via the NIMH data archive (https://nda.nih.gov/edit_collection.html?id=3955). Code and additional data for this study are openly available at a Github repository (https://github.com/ThanosTsig/InfantMicro) which is archived in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18910237).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under the Emmy Noether Programme (524408221 to CP; https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/person/518862085?language=en) and the German Scholars Organisation through the Klaus Tschira Boost Fund (KT40 to CP; https://gsonet.org/foerderprogramme/klaus-tschira-boost-fund/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Molnár Z, Clowry GJ, Šestan N, Alzu’bi A, Bakken T, Hevner RF, et al. New insights into the development of the human cerebral cortex. J Anat. 2019;235(3):432–51. doi: 10.1111/joa.13055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Molnár Z, Luhmann HJ, Kanold PO. Transient cortical circuits match spontaneous and sensory-driven activity during development. Science. 2020;370(6514):eabb2153. doi: 10.1126/science.abb2153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ohtaka-Maruyama C. Subplate Neurons as an organizer of mammalian neocortical development. Front Neuroanat. 2020;14:8. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2020.00008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Huttenlocher PR, Dabholkar AS. Regional differences in synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex. J Comp Neurol. 1997;387(2):167–78. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19971020)387:2<167::aid-cne1>3.0.co;2-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Borello U, Pierani A. Patterning the cerebral cortex: traveling with morphogens. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2010;20(4):408–15. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2010.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Marx V, Nagy E. Fetal behavioural responses to maternal voice and touch. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Webb AR, Heller HT, Benson CB, Lahav A. Mother’s voice and heartbeat sounds elicit auditory plasticity in the human brain before full gestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(10):3152–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414924112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bystron I, Blakemore C, Rakic P. Development of the human cerebral cortex: Boulder Committee revisited. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(2):110–22. doi: 10.1038/nrn2252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Webb SJ, Monk CS, Nelson CA. Mechanisms of postnatal neurobiological development: implications for human development. Dev Neuropsychol. 2001;19(2):147–71. doi: 10.1207/S15326942DN1902_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lokhandwala S, Spencer RMC. Relations between sleep patterns early in life and brain development: a review. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2022;56:101130. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Stiles J, Jernigan TL. The basics of brain development. Neuropsychol Rev. 2010;20(4):327–48. doi: 10.1007/s11065-010-9148-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gozdas E, Parikh NA, Merhar SL, Tkach JA, He L, Holland SK. Altered functional network connectivity in preterm infants: antecedents of cognitive and motor impairments? Brain Struct Funct. 2018;223(8):3665–80. doi: 10.1007/s00429-018-1707-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Smyser CD, Snyder AZ, Shimony JS, Mitra A, Inder TE, Neil JJ. Resting-state network complexity and magnitude are reduced in prematurely born infants. Cereb Cortex. 2016;26(1):322–33. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ball G, Seidlitz J, O’Muircheartaigh J, Dimitrova R, Fenchel D, Makropoulos A, et al. Cortical morphology at birth reflects spatiotemporal patterns of gene expression in the fetal human brain. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(11):e3000976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li G, Nie J, Wang L, Shi F, Lin W, Gilmore JH, et al. Mapping region-specific longitudinal cortical surface expansion from birth to 2 years of age. Cereb Cortex. 2013;23(11):2724–33. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wang F, Lian C, Wu Z, Zhang H, Li T, Meng Y, et al. Developmental topography of cortical thickness during infancy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(32):15855–60. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1821523116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gao W, Alcauter S, Elton A, Hernandez-Castillo CR, Smith JK, Ramirez J, et al. Functional network development during the first year: relative sequence and socioeconomic correlations. Cereb Cortex. 2015;25(9):2919–28. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gilmore JH, Shi F, Woolson SL, Knickmeyer RC, Short SJ, Lin W, et al. Longitudinal development of cortical and subcortical gray matter from birth to 2 years. Cereb Cortex. 2012;22(11):2478–85. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lyall AE, Shi F, Geng X, Woolson S, Li G, Wang L, et al. Dynamic development of regional cortical thickness and surface area in early childhood. Cereb Cortex. 2015;25(8):2204–12. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.la Fougère C, Grant S, Kostikov A, Schirrmacher R, Gravel P, Schipper HM, et al. Where in-vivo imaging meets cytoarchitectonics: the relationship between cortical thickness and neuronal density measured with high-resolution [18F]flumazenil-PET. Neuroimage. 2011;56(3):951–60. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ribeiro PFM, Ventura-Antunes L, Gabi M, Mota B, Grinberg LT, Farfel JM, et al. The human cerebral cortex is neither one nor many: neuronal distribution reveals two quantitatively different zones in the gray matter, three in the white matter, and explains local variations in cortical folding. Front Neuroanat. 2013;7:28. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2013.00028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Meyer G, Schaaps JP, Moreau L, Goffinet AM. Embryonic and early fetal development of the human neocortex. J Neurosci. 2000;20(5):1858–68. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-05-01858.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Paquola C, Royer J, Tsigaras T, Cabalo DG, Hwang Y, Hoffstaedter F, et al. Intracortical microstructure profiling: a versatile method for indexing cortical lamination. bioRxiv. 2025. doi: 10.1101/2025.10.16.682836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Paquola C, Vos De Wael R, Wagstyl K, Bethlehem RAI, Hong S-J, Seidlitz J, et al. Microstructural and functional gradients are increasingly dissociated in transmodal cortices. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(5):e3000284. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sui YV, Masurkar AV, Rusinek H, Reisberg B, Lazar M. Cortical myelin profile variations in healthy aging brain: A T1w/T2w ratio study. Neuroimage. 2022;264:119743. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Glasser MF, Goyal MS, Preuss TM, Raichle ME, Van Essen DC. Trends and properties of human cerebral cortex: correlations with cortical myelin content. Neuroimage. 2014;93 Pt 2:165–75. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Glasser MF, Van Essen DC. Mapping human cortical areas in vivo based on myelin content as revealed by T1- and T2-weighted MRI. J Neurosci. 2011;31(32):11597–616. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2180-11.2011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nakamura K, Chen JT, Ontaneda D, Fox RJ, Trapp BD. T1-/T2-weighted ratio differs in demyelinated cortex in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2017;82(4):635–9. doi: 10.1002/ana.25019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Glasser MF, Coalson TS, Harms MP, Xu J, Baum GL, Autio JA, et al. Empirical transmit field bias correction of T1w/T2w myelin maps. Neuroimage. 2022;258:119360. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sandrone S, Aiello M, Cavaliere C, Thiebaut de Schotten M, Reimann K, Troakes C, et al. Mapping myelin in white matter with T1-weighted/T2-weighted maps: discrepancy with histology and other myelin MRI measures. Brain Struct Funct. 2023;228(2):525–35. doi: 10.1007/s00429-022-02600-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.MacLennan T, Seres P, Rickard J, Stolz E, Beaulieu C, Wilman AH. Characterization of B1+ field variation in brain at 3 T using 385 healthy individuals across the lifespan. Magn Reson Med. 2022;87(2):960–71. doi: 10.1002/mrm.29011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shams Z, Norris DG, Marques JP. A comparison of in vivo MRI based cortical myelin mapping using T1w/T2w and R1 mapping at 3T. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0218089. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Stüber C, Morawski M, Schäfer A, Labadie C, Wähnert M, Leuze C, et al. Myelin and iron concentration in the human brain: a quantitative study of MRI contrast. Neuroimage. 2014;93 Pt 1:95–106. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.02.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hughes EJ, Winchman T, Padormo F, Teixeira R, Wurie J, Sharma M, et al. A dedicated neonatal brain imaging system. Magn Reson Med. 2017;78(2):794–804. doi: 10.1002/mrm.26462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Quinn J-A, Munoz FM, Gonik B, Frau L, Cutland C, Mallett-Moore T, et al. Preterm birth: Case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunisation safety data. Vaccine. 2016;34(49):6047–56. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Makropoulos A, Robinson EC, Schuh A, Wright R, Fitzgibbon S, Bozek J, et al. The developing human connectome project: a minimal processing pipeline for neonatal cortical surface reconstruction. Neuroimage. 2018;173:88–112. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cordero-Grande L, Hughes EJ, Hutter J, Price AN, Hajnal JV. Three-dimensional motion corrected sensitivity encoding reconstruction for multi-shot multi-slice MRI: application to neonatal brain imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2018;79(3):1365–76. doi: 10.1002/mrm.26796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kuklisova-Murgasova M, Quaghebeur G, Rutherford MA, Hajnal JV, Schnabel JA. Reconstruction of fetal brain MRI with intensity matching and complete outlier removal. Med Image Anal. 2012;16(8):1550–64. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2012.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Smith SM. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002;17(3):143–55. doi: 10.1002/hbm.10062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Makropoulos A, Gousias IS, Ledig C, Aljabar P, Serag A, Hajnal JV, et al. Automatic whole brain MRI segmentation of the developing neonatal brain. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;33(9):1818–31. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2322280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Scholtens LH, de Reus MA, de Lange SC, Schmidt R, van den Heuvel MP. An MRI Von Economo - Koskinas atlas. Neuroimage. 2018;170:249–56. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.von Economo CF, Koskinas GN. Die Cytoarchitektonik der Hirnrinde des erwachsenen Menschen. J. Springer; 1925. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Williams LZJ, Fitzgibbon SP, Bozek J, Winkler AM, Dimitrova R, Poppe T, et al. Structural and functional asymmetry of the neonatal cerebral cortex. Nat Hum Behav. 2023;7(6):942–55. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01542-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Robinson EC, Garcia K, Glasser MF, Chen Z, Coalson TS, Makropoulos A, et al. Multimodal surface matching with higher-order smoothness constraints. Neuroimage. 2018;167:453–65. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Schaefer A, Kong R, Gordon EM, Laumann TO, Zuo X-N, Holmes AJ, et al. Local-global parcellation of the human cerebral cortex from intrinsic functional connectivity MRI. Cereb Cortex. 2018;28(9):3095–114. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhx179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bok ST. Der Einflu\ der in den Furchen und Windungen auftretenden Krümmungen der Gro\hirnrinde auf die Rindenarchitektur. Z f d g Neur u Psych. 1929;121(1):682–750. doi: 10.1007/bf02864437 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Consolini J, Demirci N, Fulwider A, Hutsler JJ, Holland MA. Bok’s equi-volume principle: translation, historical context, and a modern perspective. Brain Multiphysics. 2022;3:100057. doi: 10.1016/j.brain.2022.100057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Waehnert MD, Dinse J, Weiss M, Streicher MN, Waehnert P, Geyer S, et al. Anatomically motivated modeling of cortical laminae. Neuroimage. 2014;93 Pt 2:210–20. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Schleicher A, Amunts K, Geyer S, Morosan P, Zilles K. Observer-independent method for microstructural parcellation of cerebral cortex: a quantitative approach to cytoarchitectonics. Neuroimage. 1999;9(1):165–77. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1998.0385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Lüsebrink F, Mattern H, Yakupov R, Acosta-Cabronero J, Ashtarayeh M, Oeltze-Jafra S, et al. Comprehensive ultrahigh resolution whole brain in vivo MRI dataset as a human phantom. Sci Data. 2021;8(1):138. doi: 10.1038/s41597-021-00923-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Paquola C, Bethlehem RA, Seidlitz J, Wagstyl K, Romero-Garcia R, Whitaker KJ, et al. Shifts in myeloarchitecture characterise adolescent development of cortical gradients. Elife. 2019;8:e50482. doi: 10.7554/eLife.50482 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pang JC, Aquino KM, Oldehinkel M, Robinson PA, Fulcher BD, Breakspear M, et al. Geometric constraints on human brain function. Nature. 2023;618(7965):566–74. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06098-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Alexander-Bloch AF, Shou H, Liu S, Satterthwaite TD, Glahn DC, Shinohara RT, et al. On testing for spatial correspondence between maps of human brain structure and function. Neuroimage. 2018;178:540–51. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.05.070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Cadwell CR, Bhaduri A, Mostajo-Radji MA, Keefe MG, Nowakowski TJ. Development and arealization of the cerebral cortex. Neuron. 2019;103(6):980–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.07.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kostović I, Sedmak G, Vukšić M, Judaš M. The relevance of human fetal subplate zone for developmental neuropathology of neuronal migration disorders and cortical dysplasia. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2015;21(2):74–82. doi: 10.1111/cns.12333 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kostović I, Judas M. The development of the subplate and thalamocortical connections in the human foetal brain. Acta Paediatr. 2010;99(8):1119–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.01811.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Begum MR, Sng JCG. Molecular mechanisms of experience-dependent maturation in cortical GABAergic inhibition. J Neurochem. 2017;142(5):649–61. doi: 10.1111/jnc.14103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sale A, Berardi N, Spolidoro M, Baroncelli L, Maffei L. GABAergic inhibition in visual cortical plasticity. Front Cell Neurosci. 2010;4:10. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2010.00010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kühne F, Neumann W-J, Hofmann P, Marques J, Kaindl AM, Tietze A. Assessment of myelination in infants and young children by T1 relaxation time measurements using the magnetization-prepared 2 rapid acquisition gradient echoes sequence. Pediatr Radiol. 2021;51(11):2058–68. doi: 10.1007/s00247-021-05109-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ball G, Srinivasan L, Aljabar P, Counsell SJ, Durighel G, Hajnal JV, et al. Development of cortical microstructure in the preterm human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(23):9541–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301652110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Dimitrova R, Pietsch M, Ciarrusta J, Fitzgibbon SP, Williams LZJ, Christiaens D, et al. Preterm birth alters the development of cortical microstructure and morphology at term-equivalent age. Neuroimage. 2021;243:118488. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Fenn-Moltu S, Fitzgibbon SP, Ciarrusta J, Eyre M, Cordero-Grande L, Chew A, et al. Development of neonatal brain functional centrality and alterations associated with preterm birth. Cereb Cortex. 2023;33(9):5585–96. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhac444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.França LGS, Ciarrusta J, Gale-Grant O, Fenn-Moltu S, Fitzgibbon S, Chew A, et al. Neonatal brain dynamic functional connectivity in term and preterm infants and its association with early childhood neurodevelopment. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):16. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44050-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Sansom SN, Livesey FJ. Gradients in the brain: the control of the development of form and function in the cerebral cortex. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2009;1(2):a002519. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a002519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Molnár Z, Kwan KY. Development and evolution of thalamocortical connectivity. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2024;16(1):a041503. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a041503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Natu VS, Rosenke M, Wu H, Querdasi FR, Kular H, Lopez-Alvarez N, et al. Infants’ cortex undergoes microstructural growth coupled with myelination during development. Commun Biol. 2021;4(1):1191. doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-02706-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Larivière S, Vos de Wael R, Hong S-J, Paquola C, Tavakol S, Lowe AJ, et al. Multiscale structure-function gradients in the neonatal connectome. Cereb Cortex. 2020;30(1):47–58. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhz069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Crump C, Sundquist J, Sundquist K. Preterm or early term birth and risk of autism. Pediatrics. 2021;148(3):e2020032300. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-032300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Crump C, Sundquist J, Sundquist K. Preterm or early term birth and risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a national cohort and co-sibling study. Ann Epidemiol. 2023;86:119–125.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.08.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Franz AP, Bolat GU, Bolat H, Matijasevich A, Santos IS, Silveira RC, et al. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and very preterm/very low birth weight: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2018;141(1):e20171645. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Christian Schnell, PhD

20 Aug 2025

Dear Dr Paquola,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Disentangling the influences of pre- and postnatal periods on human cortical microstructure" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. After your manuscript has passed the checks it will be sent out for review. To provide the metadata for your submission, please Login to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology) within two working days, i.e. by Aug 22 2025 11:59PM.

If your manuscript has been previously peer-reviewed at another journal, PLOS Biology is willing to work with those reviews in order to avoid re-starting the process. Submission of the previous reviews is entirely optional and our ability to use them effectively will depend on the willingness of the previous journal to confirm the content of the reports and share the reviewer identities. Please note that we reserve the right to invite additional reviewers if we consider that additional/independent reviewers are needed, although we aim to avoid this as far as possible. In our experience, working with previous reviews does save time.

If you would like us to consider previous reviewer reports, please edit your cover letter to let us know and include the name of the journal where the work was previously considered and the manuscript ID it was given. In addition, please upload a response to the reviews as a 'Prior Peer Review' file type, which should include the reports in full and a point-by-point reply detailing how you have or plan to address the reviewers' concerns.

During the process of completing your manuscript submission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Christian

Christian Schnell, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

cschnell@plos.org

Decision Letter 1

Christian Schnell, PhD

10 Nov 2025

Dear Dr Paquola,

Thank you for your patience while your manuscript "Disentangling the influences of pre- and postnatal periods on human cortical microstructure" was peer-reviewed at PLOS Biology. First of all, please allow me to apologize for the long delay in sending our decision. Unfortunately, it has been a bit more difficult than usual to find reviewers with the required expertise to review your manuscript. However, your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

In light of the reviews, which you will find at the end of this email, we would like to invite you to revise the work to thoroughly address the reviewers' reports.

As you will see below, the reviewers expressed interest in your approach and find the study potentially valuable. However, all reviewers wrote that the text contains imprecise statements and needs greater nuance in its interpretations. Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 3 in particular also mention major technical concerns about the analytical approach, about aspects of the analyses and interpretations, and highlighted missing methodological information. We think that all these concerns need to be addressed. Moreover, in particular in light of the concerns about the spatial resolution, we ask you to address these concerns as far as possible by providing additional analyses and phrase the corresponding results and claims more carefully, and to discuss the limitations of your approach in a Limitations section within the Discussion.

Given the extent of revision needed, we cannot make a decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is likely to be sent for further evaluation by all or a subset of the reviewers.

In addition to these revisions, you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests shortly.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 3 months. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension.

At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may withdraw it.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point-by-point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Revised Article with Changes Highlighted" file type.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Christian

Christian Schnell, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

cschnell@plos.org

------------------------------------

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1: The manuscript presents a novel analysis of neonatal intracortical microstructure. Using a very large dataset of anatomical infant MRI, the authors sampled T1w/T2w ratios across equidistant surfaces spanning the cortical depth to model signal variation from pial to white matter. Profiles were summarized by mean intensity, centre of gravity, and variance, and developmental trajectories were examined with respect to gestational and postnatal age, then related to low spatial-frequency geometric eigenmodes. The approach of probing within-tissue properties and sublaminar features is interesting and potentially valuable. The study is generally well organized and clearly written. However, I have several concerns, especially regarding methodological limitations inherent to infant imaging and profile-based analyses, and some interpretations.

Major comments

1. T1w/T2w ratio interpretation and terminology

* Terms such as 'microstructural density' or 'increase in microstructure' are imprecise. Microstructure is not a direct metric; please describe the actual measured quantities (mean T1w/T2w values, variance etc). I'm not sure I understand what 'microstructural density' means in this context.

* Framing of T1w/T2w as a direct measure of microstructure should be interpreted with caution. Actually, you provide more details in Methods when describing the T1w/T2w, some of it repeats the introduction and some expands on it. Consider merging and using the Introduction to frame the concept as a composite marker of cortical microstructure from the start.

Methodological limitations

* Sampling across 12 equivolumetric intracortical surfaces is interesting, but neonatal cortex is very thin (<2 mm, 3-4 voxels at 0.5 mm resolution). Surfaces are thus highly non-independent and susceptible to partial volume effects, interpolation errors, and noise. Regional differences in cortical thickness may also affect centre of gravity and variance estimates because of 'closer/wider' sampling, potentially impacting the resulting 'laminar' intensity distributions. It would be good to discuss this more explicitly.

* Von Economo atlas is based on adult cytoarchitecture, raising concerns about the relevance of its regional boundaries in neonates, especially since your study focuses on laminar microstructure with goal to show that it significantly changes during the perinatal period (do you expect the laminae to change with age but the boundaries to stay exactly same as in adult?)

* Generally, methodological limitations are not discussed in the Discussion at all; including these would better contextualize the results.

* 'Histological studies, that do directly assess cytoarchitectural features, are naturally cross-sectional and often very limited in sample size.' Your study is also cross-sectional 0: )

Framing of perinatal development.

* The manuscript often presents perinatal development as a dichotomous shift from genetic to experience-driven processes. Ontogeny is continuous and shaped by complex interactions (maternal-fetal environment, epigenetics, metabolism, circuit maturation, sensory input). I recommend softening this framing and clarifying that observed changes reflect interacting processes rather than a strict intra- vs. extrauterine shift. I have also few hesitations about statements like:

o 'foetus is relatively isolated from sensory input' is not fully accurate. Fetal sensory input exists and differs from postnatal exposure.

o The claim that thalamocortical connectivity refines cortical arealisation postnatally is overly restrictive. Thalamocortical and corticocortical connections develop prenatally, with subplate activity already influencing laminar organization. Consider clarifying that these processes begin in utero and continue postnatally.

* While trying to distinguish prenatal vs. postnatal effects is interesting, I'm not sure the data allow strong conclusions. You have access to scans at a specific age (PMA), and then you create prenatal and postnatal period as summative age birth and birth-scan (24wGA +6 weeks to scan does not represent the same developmental period as 38wGA + 6 weeks and correcting with linear regression is probably insufficient to disentangle these differences).

* Also, GA and PNA differ in duration (months vs. max 7 weeks), so caution is warranted when interpreting relative effects (for example saying prenatal development has larger effects).

* Observed laminar differences (sensorimotor deeper vs. visual upper layers) are intriguing. You link this to later functional differentiation in discussion. Would this potentially reflect developmental asynchronies; sensorimotor areas might mature earlier, and superficial-to-deep maturation may place them in a 'deeper stage' at the observed ages (tentative).

Handling of preterm and non-singleton infants

* 'This modulatory transition highlights the importance of the timing of birth in brain development, with prematurely born infants being exposed to a sensory-rich environment before the scaffold of their circuitry has been completely established for postnatal plasticity.' Exactly, the premature babies should not be considered as developing 'typically' so mixing them into your population might be problematic. 30% of the sample is preterm, which complicates interpretation of GA vs. PNA effects. This might need to be explicitly acknowledged.

* The rationale for excluding scans with PNA >7 weeks is unclear. You assume equivalent postnatal weeks after preterm vs. term birth reflects the same developmental stage, it might be clarified bit more.

* 'In general, the prominent effect of gestational maturation on cortical microstructure emphasises the importance of the timing of birth and indicates that premature transition to the ex utero environment could disturb the well-regulated developmental trajectories of cortical growth, an insight that aligns with literature across various modalities' I don't disagree with the statement, but you did not study this directly?

* Non-singleton participants (79 infants) are referred to as twins in supplementary materials. Why is the number not even, or maybe there were >2 non-singletons? Results on singletons are shown in supplementary, a brief mention in the main text, noting agreement with full sample, would strengthen the results. Otherwise one could argue that non-singletons might not be developing typically due to very different intra-uterine conditions compared to singletons, affecting your developmental relationships. (Similarly, it is very good that you performed the same analysis with the Schaefer atlas too, why are the results not ever mentioned/discussed? Even 1-2 sentences about whether the results agree or not, and why would be helpful.)

* Not sure I agree with the statement suggesting longitudinal studies could 'compensate for the imbalance in postnatal ages'. Longitudinal studies allow observation of trajectories, not correction of GA/PNA differences, or maybe you meant something else?

Minor comments:

Analysis and reporting

* Consider reporting regional variability in intensity distributions across cortical depth as this is interesting in itself.

* It would be nice to get more details on how the intensity values were sampled for the 12 intracortical surfaces (including interpolation).

* Why are results in the main text shown for only one hemisphere? Were left/right regions averaged? Supplementary figures show both.

Terminology, Figures, Legends

* The legend to Fig. 2 may not need to re-explain definitions of the signal descriptors, you provided those in the methods.

* I find it strange that y-axis of the T1w/T2w intensity plots have no indication of 'localisation' even just adding pial,wm would be useful.

* Figure 3: Why were correlations with variance not shown?

* Figure 5A: top right + bottom left and B left + middle - are these exactly same maps and correlations or are they so similar?

* Several figure labels are inconsistent, e.g., "duration of gestation" in Figure 1B is Gestational age? Please double check the terminologies for ages (GA, PMA, PNA) throughout the manuscript and figures.

Other

* Clarify expressions: 'relay weak sensory drive,' 'how translating intracortical microstructure profiling,' 'transfer developmental control from genetic preprogramming to increasing experience-dependent plasticity.'

* 'long-term cognitive vulnerability' preterm infants tend to be affected across multiple domains, including cognitive outcomes, would neurodevelopmental vulnerability be more encompassing?

* I am not sure I understand the 'differentiable' in this sentence: 'In contrast, we observed decreases in profile variance during the postnatal period, suggesting that cortical layers become more differentiable in the first postnatal weeks'. In methods you defined variance as 'the spread of intensities across the profile. A higher variance relates to a flatter intensity profile (i.e. uniformly distributed intensities across intracortical depths) and a low variance describes a heterogeneous intensity distribution across intracortical depths'. Decrease in variance thus reflects more uniform distribution (less differentiable laminae), or maybe I have misunderstood your statement?

* The statement that macroscale features 'do not relate to cytoarchitectural changes' is too strong. While coarse, thickness and surface area reflect some cytoarchitectural aspects (laminar thickness, regional cell density). It would be beneficial to soften this wording

* 'mesiotemporal axis' - 'mesiotemporal lobe' or do you have something more specific in mind?

* 'postnatal age of 6+6 weeks' is this std? +-?

FYI, I tried to provide as much localization in the text as possible for my comments, but without line numbers this was difficult. I would encourage the authors to include them in their future submissions to make the reviewers' lives easier 0: )

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting work, I hope my comments will be helpful. With clarification of methodological limitations, careful framing of developmental interpretations, and minor revisions to terminology and figures, the manuscript will provide valuable insight into early cortical microstructural development. I wish the authors the best in their revisions.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript provides a thorough and rigorous analysis of T1/T2 ratio offering insights into the spatial patterning of microstructure following birth. The results are complemented by a thoughtful summary of early biological mechanisms governing areal patterning of the human cortex. However, the interpretation of the changes in the context of sensory isolation vs external sensory stimulation from the postnatal environment is a bit oversimplistic. The text would be improved with added nuance to the interpretation of findings.

"After birth, aside from the intrinsic refinement of the cortical structure, sensory input drives neuronal patterning." Neonates spend approximately 70% of their time asleep. Given the disproportionate amount of time spent asleep, research suggests that electrical activity during sleep plays a crucial role in the developing motor and visual system (PMCID: PMC4884844; PMCID: PMC9254005).

"In utero the foetus is relatively isolated from sensory input and therefore genetic and epigenetic programming primarily steer neurobiological processes" There is sensory input from maternal voice and heartbeat (PMCID: PMC4364233) and sensory input from motor movements from the infant during sleep (PMID: 26364005) that likely contribute to brain development.

"This modulatory transition highlights the importance of the timing of birth in brain development, with prematurely born infants being exposed to a sensory-rich environment before the scaffold of their circuitry has been completely established for postnatal plasticity." The clinical characteristics of the preterm neonates included in the analysis are not described. However, the study includes extremely preterm and very preterm neonates. Extremely preterm and very preterm neonates often have interventions to sustain life (e.g., mechanical ventilation, antenatal steroids, humidity and oxygenation control, antibiotics). Disruptions to oxygenation and blood flow, and associated brain injury, are more likely the culprit to aberrant grey and white matter development than a 'sensory-rich environment'. Further, disrupted sleep from feeding and for necessary medical interventions is likely a major contributing factor to disrupted brain growth in prematurely born infants.

"In general, the prominent effect of gestational maturation on cortical microstructure emphasises the importance of the timing of birth and indicates that premature transition to the ex utero environment could disturb the well-regulated developmental trajectories of cortical growth, an insight that aligns with literature across various modalities" It's not clear that the current results demonstrate that premature birth disturbs developmental trajectories. Is there an interaction between postnatal age and GA? i.e., do neonates born extremely or very preterm have a lower postnatal correlation with microstructure intensity than term born neonates?

Minor

The abstract says (n=599, 0-7 weeks). Rather than the postnatal age, it would be more informative to state the GA or PMA.

The x-axis is extremely small font in figures 1-2.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript investigates how intrinsic and extrinsic factors drive maturation of the human cortex during late gestation and early postnatal development. The authors used T1-weighted and T2-weighted MRI scans from the Developing Human Connectome Project (dHCP), leveraging the T1w/T2w ratio as a biomarker to characterize cortical microstructural changes. To present intracortical microstructure profiles, the neonatal cortex was divided into 12 layers, and the profile shapes were described using central moments inspired by prior histological work. The effects of gestational and postnatal age on these profiles were examined and found to align with low spatial-frequency geometric eigenmodes of the cortex. It is commendable that the authors attempted laminar-level analysis of the neonatal cortex to assess intrinsic and extrinsic factors, and the relatively large dataset of 599 neonates is a notable strength. However, without a strong fundamental basis for dividing the neonatal cortex into 12 layers, and without sufficient justification of the accuracy of values extracted from each layer, the subsequent analyses risk being perceived as a mathematical exercise rather than a substantive contribution to our understanding of cortical development. Such analysis to MRI is fundamentally limited by much lower resolution of MRI compared to that of histological images. It is almost impossible to justify expanding histological framework to MRI data as conducted in this manuscript.

Major comments:

1. The authors constructed 12 equivolumetric surfaces between the pial and white matter surfaces. However, the average human cortex is approximately 2-4 mm thick, and neonatal cortices are even thinner. The raw T1-weighted image resolution is 0.8 x 0.8 x 1.6 mm3. In theory, the images can be upsampled to any higher resolution, but any upsampling is just artificial, not bringing real new information. Dividing the neonatal cortex with acquisition resolution of only 1-2 voxels into 12 layers appears to be just mathematic exercise instead of revealing any validated information. The cited paper (Waehnert et al., 2014) conducted the analysis on ex-vivo images acquired on 7T scanner with resolution of 140 um, which cannot fully justify the same methods could be employed in this study. In the current context, this approach raises concerns about artificial measures, and a high degree of voxel overlap between adjacent layers. Furthermore, the segmentation results shown in Fig. 2A appear incorrect in the central regions of the brain, which raises additional concerns about segmentation accuracy even before performing laminar analysis. The partial volume effects are big. The deepest cortical layers are likely to be contaminated by white matter voxels, while the most superficial layers may be affected by CSF signals. Finally, no laminar surface mapping figures were presented in the main results or supplementary materials, which further undermines validity in the study's central claim of capturing cortical laminar organization.

2. While one of the major highlights in the Methods is "histology-inspired intracortical profiling", it is not clear how the measure -- center of gravity (CoG) was computed in this study, and the cited reference (Schleicher et al., 1999) does not provide a clear corresponding explanation. If this is the first time this measure was employed in the imaging study, more detailed and rigorous explanation or testing of the measure is expected. Figure 2B is particularly confusing: of all three small panels, the x-axis is labeled as T1w/T2w intensity and the y-axis as cortical depth, but it is unclear how the different panels separately represent mean intensity, CoG, and variance. In addition, the meaning of the color coding is not explained—does it represent age or these center measure?

Minor comments:

1. The authors also conducted product-moment correlations between the postmenstrual, gestational and postnatal age effects and the 2nd-4th geometric eigenmodes. However, the manuscript does not provide a detailed explanation of how these eigenmodes were computed, and the cited reference (Pang et al., 2023) is missing from the reference list.

2. Throughout the manuscript, terms such as "microstructural density," "intracortical homogeneity," and "variance" are sometimes used interchangeably or without precise definition. For readers less familiar with histology-inspired moment metrics, a more consistent phrasing would make the results easier to interpret.

Decision Letter 2

Christian Schnell, PhD

23 Feb 2026

Dear Dr Paquola,

Thank you for your patience while we considered your revised manuscript "Disentangling the influences of pre- and postnatal periods on human cortical myelin" for publication as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors and the Academic Editor.

Based on our Academic Editor's assessment of your revision, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the following data and other policy-related requests:

* We would like to suggest a different title to improve its accessibility for our broad audience:

Prenatal and early postnatal periods differentially shape the maturation of human cortical microstructure and myelin

* Please add the links to the funding agencies in the Financial Disclosure statement in the manuscript details.

* Please include the approval/license number of the ethical approval for the experiments.

* Please include information in the Methods section whether the study has been conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.

* Please specify whether the participants provided written or oral consent.

* DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it: 5B

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

* CODE POLICY

Per journal policy, if you have generated any custom code during the course of this investigation, please make it available without restrictions. Please ensure that the code is sufficiently well documented and reusable, and that your Data Statement in the Editorial Manager submission system accurately describes where your code can be found. More information on our Code Policy, what and how to share can be found here: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/code-availability

Please note that we cannot accept sole deposition of code in GitHub, as this could be changed after publication. However, you can archive this version of your publicly available GitHub code to Zenodo. Once you do this, it will generate a DOI number, which you will need to provide in the Data Accessibility Statement (you are welcome to also provide the GitHub access information). See the process for doing this here: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/archiving-a-github-repository/referencing-and-citing-content

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

In addition to these revisions, you may need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests shortly. If you do not receive a separate email within a few days, please assume that checks have been completed, and no additional changes are required.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable, if not applicable please do not delete your existing 'Response to Reviewers' file.)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://plos.org/published-peer-review-history/

*Press*

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, please ensure you have opted out of Early Article Posting on the submission form. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Christian

Christian Schnell, PhD

Senior Editor

cschnell@plos.org

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 3

Christian Schnell, PhD

9 Mar 2026

Dear Dr Paquola,

Thank you for the submission of your revised Research Article "Prenatal and early postnatal periods differentially shape the maturation of human cortical microstructure and myelin" for publication in PLOS Biology. On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Henry Kennedy, I am pleased to say that we can in principle accept your manuscript for publication, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email you should receive within 2-3 business days from our colleagues in the journal operations team; no action is required from you until then. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have completed any requested changes.

While you attend to those requests to come, please also provide a link in the figure legend of Figure 5 where the source data for this figure can be found, for example: Data used to generate this figure can be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18910238."

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have previously opted in to the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may opt out on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study.

Sincerely,

Christian

Christian Schnell, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

cschnell@plos.org

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Effects of postmenstrual age on cortical myelin, excluding twin participants.

    Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postmenstrual age (PMA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps were derived from a subsample of participants, which excluded any participants of multiple pregnancies. Smaller surface maps were derived from the original sample of this study. All surface maps display t-values for the PMA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects on the original dataset and the dataset excluding twins is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s001.pdf (213.2KB, pdf)
    S2 Fig. Effects of gestational age on cortical myelin after correcting for the effects of postnatal age, excluding twin participants.

    Linear regression models were used to assess the association between gestational age (GA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps were derived from a subsample of participants, which excluded any participants of multiple pregnancies. Smaller surface maps were derived from the original sample of this study. All surface maps display t-values for the GA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects on the original dataset and the dataset excluding twins is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s002.pdf (197.7KB, pdf)
    S3 Fig. Effects of postnatal age on cortical myelin after correcting for the effects of gestational age, excluding twin participants.

    Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postnatal age (PNA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps were derived from a subsample of participants, which excluded any participants of multiple pregnancies. Smaller surface maps were derived from the original sample of this study. All surface maps display t-values for the PNA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects on the original dataset and the dataset excluding twins is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s003.pdf (194.9KB, pdf)
    S4 Fig. Effects on cortical myelin, excluding extremely preterm infants.

    Linear regression models were used to asses the association between postmenstrual (left), gestational (middle) and postnatal age (right) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while excluding extremely preterm (EPT) infants from the analyses. The first and third rows of surface maps display the t-values for the developmental variables in the original dataset with all participants, whereas the second and forth rows display the t-values for the developmental variables in the subset excluding EPT participants. The first two rows correspond to the linear models with center of gravity as response variable, whereas the third and forth rows correspond to the models with variance as response variable. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s004.pdf (237.9KB, pdf)
    S5 Fig. Effects on cortical myelin, excluding very preterm infants.

    Linear regression models were used to asses the association between postmenstrual (left), gestational (middle) and postnatal age (right) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while excluding very preterm (VPT) infants from the analyses. The first and third rows of surface maps display the t-values for the developmental variables in the original dataset with all participants, whereas the second and forth rows display the t-values for the developmental variables in the subset excluding VPT participants. The first two rows correspond to the linear models with center of gravity as response variable, whereas the third and forth rows correspond to the models with variance as response variable. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s005.pdf (236.1KB, pdf)
    S6 Fig. Effects on cortical myelin, excluding preterm infants.

    Linear regression models were used to asses the association between postmenstrual (left), gestational (middle) and postnatal age (right) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while excluding preterm (PT) infants from the analyses. The first and third rows of surface maps display the t-values for the developmental variables in the original dataset with all participants, whereas the second and forth rows display the t-values for the developmental variables in the subset excluding PT participants. The first two rows correspond to the linear models with center of gravity as response variable, whereas the third and forth rows correspond to the models with variance as response variable. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s006.pdf (236.1KB, pdf)
    S7 Fig. Effects of postmenstrual age on cortical myelin, Schaefer-200 atlas.

    Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postmenstrual age (PMA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions of the Schaefer-200 atlas, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps display t-values for the PMA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). Smaller surface maps show the results of the same models using the von Economo atlas. The spatial correlation between the effects on the Schaefer-200 and von Economo atlas is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. To calculate these correlations, parcel-wise results were upsampled to vertex-wise level. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s007.pdf (192.3KB, pdf)
    S8 Fig. Effects of gestational age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of postnatal age, Schaefer-200 atlas.

    Linear regression models were used to assess the association between gestational age (GA) with intracortical profile moments across cortical regions of the Schaefer-200 atlas, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps display t-values for the GA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). Smaller surface maps show the results of the same models using the von Economo atlas. The spatial correlation between the effects on the Schaefer-200 and von Economo atlas is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. To calculate these correlations, parcel-wise results were upsampled to vertex-wise level. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s008.pdf (198KB, pdf)
    S9 Fig. Effects of postnatal age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of gestational age, Schaefer-200 atlas.

    Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postnatal age (PNA) with intracortical profile moments across cortical regions of the Schaefer-200 atlas, while controlling for sex. Bigger surface maps display t-values for the PNA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). Smaller surface maps show the results of the same models using the von Economo atlas. The spatial correlation between the effects on the Schaefer-200 and von Economo atlas is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. To calculate these correlations, parcel-wise results were upsampled to vertex-wise level. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s009.pdf (194.9KB, pdf)
    S10 Fig. Depth-wise intensity distributions.

    Parcel-wise T1w/T2w intensity distributions mapped on the dHCP 40-week surface template. Excluded regions (i.e., von Economo areas LA1, LA2, LC1, LC2, LC3, LD, and LE and the cortical wall) are shown in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s010.pdf (307.3KB, pdf)
    S11 Fig. Effects of gestational and postnatal age on cortical myelin, without correcting for the effects of each other.

    Cortical surface maps illustrate the spatial distribution of gestational (left) and postnatal (right) age effects on each central moment, without controlling for postnatal and gestational age, respectively. The parcel-wise estimates were obtained from linear regression models with gestational age and sex or postnatal age and sex as predictors. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s011.pdf (232.7KB, pdf)
    S12 Fig. Effects of postmenstrual age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of cortical thickness.

    Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postmenstrual age (PMA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for cortical thickness and sex. The original results of this study, without controlling for cortical thickness are displayed as smaller surface maps. All surface maps display t-values for the PMA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects with and without controlling for cortical thickness is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s012.pdf (193KB, pdf)
    S13 Fig. Effects of gestational age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of cortical thickness.

    Linear regression models were used to assess the association between gestational age (GA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for cortical thickness and sex. The original results of this study, without controlling for cortical thickness are displayed as smaller surface maps. All surface maps display t-values for the GA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects with and without controlling for cortical thickness is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s013.pdf (195.2KB, pdf)
    S14 Fig. Effects of postnatal age on cortical myelin, after correcting for the effects of cortical thickness.

    Linear regression models were used to assess the association between postnatal age (PNA) and intracortical profile moments across cortical regions, while controlling for cortical thickness and sex. The original results of this study, without controlling for cortical thickness are displayed as smaller surface maps. All surface maps display t-values for the PNA-estimate, projected onto the cortical surface for center of gravity (top) and variance (bottom). The spatial correlation between the effects with and without controlling for cortical thickness is displayed in the middle of each set, together with the p-value derived from spin-based permutation testing (n = 10,000), between the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of the permuted correlations. Excluded parcels are displayed in gray.

    (PDF)

    pbio.3003722.s014.pdf (213KB, pdf)
    S1 Data. Data file.

    (XLSX)

    pbio.3003722.s015.xlsx (18.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_060226.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    Data were obtained from the developing Human Connectome Project (https://www.developingconnectome.org/), which is openly available to download for research purposes via the NIMH data archive (https://nda.nih.gov/edit_collection.html?id=3955). Code and additional data for this study are openly available at a Github repository (https://github.com/ThanosTsig/InfantMicro) which is archived in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18910237).


    Articles from PLOS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES